TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 386
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o as the Revenue) by filing aforesaid cross appeals sought to set aside the impugned orders dated 09.01.2012, 19.04.2012, 29.01.2018 for A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2013-14 respectively passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)], on the grounds inter alia that: ITA No.2509/M/2012 (Revenue's appeal) for A.Y. 2008-09 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee to the extent impugned in the grounds enumerated below: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s.!4A r.w.r. 8D ignoring the fact that Rule 8D is applicable from A.Y. 2007-08. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating interest on margin money, interest on loans to employees, interest on day to day balance with bank in current account, interest on blocked amount and as business income without appreciating the fact that the same were not immediately linked to the business of the assessee. 3. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eciation claim of Rs. 66,742/- on intangible assets - non-compete fees. 2) The CIT(A) erred in applying Rule 8D (2)(iii) towards disallowance of administrative expenses u/s 14A of the Act without giving any reasons for not accepting disallowance offered by Appellant towards 14A. 3) The CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 37,65,576/- (i.e. l/5th of Rs. 18,827,878/-) incurred in AY 2011-12 towards issue of CCPS on right basis claimed u/s 35D of the Act. 4) The CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 99,39,752/- (i.e. l/5th of Rs. 4,96,98,760/-) incurred in AY 2012-13 towards issue of CCPS on right basis claimed u/s 35D of the Act. 5) The CIT (A) erred in confirming the interest income of Rs. 23,17,37,000/- being taxed under the head 'Income from other sources' and not as 'business income' as offered by the Appellant. 6) The CIT(A) erred in disallowing u/s 36(l)(ii) commission of Rs. 4,00,000/- paid to Mr. K.Suntook director of the company. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, substitute and/or vary any of the above grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ld. A.R. for the assessee. The identical issue was there in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2007-08 decided in ITA No.5775/M/2011 vide order dated 15.07.2020 by returning the following findings: "73. Coming to Ground No. 11 of grounds of appeal relating to confirming the interest disallowance on the loans given to subsidiaries, interest on Income-tax refund and interest on warrants conversion, application money, taxed under the income from other sources instead of business income. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this ground is not pressed as there is no impact on the assessed income and hence academic. In view of the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee this ground is treated as not pressed. Further, we keep the issue open and the decision taken for this assessment year shall not be treated as precedent for later years. This ground is dismissed as indicated above." 10. So in view of the matter, we are of the considered view that since the income under consideration is tax neutral and assessee has not pressed this ground being academic in nature, the same is dismissed. However, this issue is kept open and the decision taken for the year under consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e AO which contains detailed submission of the appellant and also detailed submission from pages 3 to 14 of the written submission filed vide letter dated 30.12.2011. 3.2.1. The appellant has considered the entire salary of Investment Manager of 15.8 lacs, 10% of salary of General Manager at 3.89 lacs, entire sitting fee paid to Investment Committee at 55,000/-, 5% of MD Remuneration at Rs..7.68 lacs, 5% commission paid to none executive directors Rs..1.53 Lacs, 5% of directors' fee at Rs..28,900/-, other administrative expense at T 3.25 lacs and interest expense at Rs.. 3.73 Lacs totaling Rs..35,90,326/-. As may be seen from Para 3.2 of the assessment order quoted above, the AO has not given any cogent reason for not being satisfied with the claim of the appellant. The AO had further erred in disallowing employees' cost and miscellaneous expense at Rs..1.86 Crores over and above the disallowance computed as per Rule 8D, specially on account of the fact that Rule 8D (iii) itself provides for disallowance of administrative expense in form of 0.5% of the average value of investment. As the appellant's computation of disallowance u/s.14A is satisfactory, the disal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee's own case for A.Y. 2007-08. 16. We have perused the relevant paras from 57 to 59 of the order (supra) passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2007-08 which is on identical issue having been decided in favour of the assessee, which fact has not been controverted by the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue. Operative part of the findings returned by the Tribunal is as under: "58. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee has disallowed an amount of Rs..35,07,020/- as expenditure incurred towards earning exempt income while computing its book profit taxable under section 115JB of the Act. The expenses disallowed pertain to those incomes which are exempted/ excluded while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. The Assessing Officer has applied Rule 8D of I.T. Rules to compute the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act at Rs..3,71,34,919/- and added back the same to the assessee's income taxable under normal provisions of the Act, as well as to the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that disallowance computed u/s. 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules is not th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view that when the assessee while computing the income under normal provisions of the Act had made suo moto disallowance of Rs. 26,65,237/- which has been upheld by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.07.2020 (supra) for A.Y. 2009-10 the same has to be adopted even while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. So we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance under section 14A to Rs. 26,65,237/- while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. Consequently, additional grounds No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee are decided in favour of the assessee. ITA No.1500/M/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 18. Tribunal has passed the order dated 05.01.2022 in MA No.22/M/2021 (supra) and recalled the appeal for limited purpose to dispose of additional ground No.5 raised by the Revenue, which is as under: "The CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest income of Rs. 23,17,37,000/- being taxed under the head 'Income from other sources' and not as 'business income' as offered by the Appellant." 19. The AO during the scrutiny proceedings noticed from the notes forming part of the profit & loss account (note 2.2) that the assessee has credited the same under the head "othe....